C. Premaraj vs B. Venkateshappa

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard Sri. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in PCR No. 1/2012 and subsequently registered as Special C.C. No. 37/2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. The records disclose that a person by name B.V. Venkatappa lodged a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and also Sections 3 & 6 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional Dy. S.P. for investigation and report. The jurisdictional Dy. S.P. investigated the matter and submitted ''B'' Final Report.

Learned counsel submits that the witnesses cited in the complaint are meticulously examined by the Dy. S.P. and he submitted in his report that the witnesses never supported the case of the complainant. Even the complainant''s version has been disbelieved by the Dy. S.P. and consequently he filed ''B'' Final Report. Subsequent to filing of ''B'' Final Report, the complainant protested the said ''B'' Report by filing a protest petition. The trial Judge allowed the complainant to contest the proceedings, recorded his sworn statement and the statements of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to issue summons against the accused persons. At that juncture, the present petition is filed.

I do not want to appreciate or make any observations with regard to the facts of the case and also truth or falsity of the case on record. It would suffice, if on broad looking of the complaint averments and sworn statement, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie case for the purpose of issuance of summons to the accused.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are divergent statements of the witnesses before police and before the court, and even there are lot of contradictions and omissions in the sworn statement itself of the complainant if it is compared to the ''B'' report submitted by the Dy. S.P., the whole case of the complainant is liable to be quashed But, I am of the opinion that those materials cannot be appreciated by this Court in order to either weigh the evidence to come to any conclusion regarding truth or falsity of the allegations, made against the petitioner. The trial Court definitely can do that exercise at the time of hearing the parties, before framing of the charges.

Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is an aged person and that a Senior Citizen should not be made to undergo the ordinal of trial. Therefore, he requests the court to direct the trial Court to take-up the matter as expeditiously as possible in order to hear the application for discharge of the accused and to pass appropriate order.

I do not feel that any unreasonable demand is made by the petitioner, therefore. I direct the trial Court that if an application is filed by the petitioner for discharge, it shall be taken on priority, as the petitioner is a senior citizen and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.